Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today (Wednesday, 14 November 2012), made the following statement:

“Citizens of Israel,

I want to praise the IDF soldiers and commanders, led by Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Benny Gantz , who is commanding the operation as we speak. I want to note the Israel Security Agency, headed by Director Yoram Cohen, for their vital part in the operational accomplishments that we have already achieved. I thank the citizens of Israel for their unwavering support of this operation. I thank the residents of southern Israel who are at the front, and exhibit strength and restraint.

Hamas and the terror organizations decided to escalate their attacks on the citizens of Israel over the last few days. We will not accept a situation in which Israeli citizens are threatened by the terror of rockets. No country would accept this, Israel will not accept it.

Today, we hit Hamas strategic targets precisely. We have significantly debilitated their ability to launch rockets from Gaza to the center of Israel, and we are now working to disable their ability to launch rockets towards the south. The terrorist organizations – Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others – are deliberately harming our citizens, while intentionally hiding behind their citizens. On the other hand, we avoid harming civilians as much as possible and that is one fundamental difference between us. It also indicates the big difference between our objectives, and not only in our methods. They want to obliterate us from the face of the earth and they have no qualms about hurting civilians and innocents.

Today, we sent an unequivocal message to Hamas and the other terror organizations, and if need be the IDF is prepared to expand the operation. We will continue to do everything necessary to defend our citizens.”

Could Spencer be talking about media outlets like that bastion of liberalism, the New York Times? As one of the largest and most read newspapers in the world, it would certainly fall under his category of “international media.” So what did the paper that has all the news that’s fit to print have to say about Israel’s Gaza attack?

“No country should have to endure the rocket attacks that Israel has endured from militants in Gaza, most recently over the past four days. The question is how to stop them permanently.”

Sounds like something Spencer would agree with. The difference, of course, lies in the question of how to stop them permanently:

“Israel has a right to defend itself, but it’s hard to see how Wednesday’s operation could be the most effective way of advancing its long-term interests.It has provoked new waves of condemnation against Israel in Arab countries, including Egypt, whose cooperation is needed to enforce the 1979 peace treaty and support stability in Sinai.”

In other words, while Spencer wholeheartedly agrees with Netanyahu’s mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians, the Times is critical of the ongoing operation’s effectiveness. Both, however accept Tel Aviv’s narrative that it had no choice but to defend itself against Palestinian “terrorism.”

Again, the Times:

“Hamas has controlled Gaza since Israel withdrew in 2007. The group has mostly adhered to an informal cease-fire with Israel after the war there in the winter of 2008-09. But, in recent months, Hamas has claimed responsibility for participating in rocket firings, and last week it took credit for detonating a tunnel packed with explosives along the Israel-Gaza border while Israeli soldiers were working nearby.”

In other words, Israel has done nothing to provoke this crisis – it’s only defending itself. That’s the Times take on Israel’s onslaught, which is consistent with its long-standing pro-Israel editorial line. In its news section – which is supposed to be “objective” – we see the same bias in favor of the Israeli narrative:

“Israel had already been facing growing tensions with its Arab neighbors. Israel has confronted lawlessness on its border with Sinai, including cross-border attacks. It recently fired twice into Syria, which is caught in a civil war, after munitions fell in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, and it has absorbed more than 750 rockets fired from Gaza into southern Israel this year. The rockets have hit homes, caused injuries and frightened the population. On Saturday, Gaza militants fired an antitank missile at an Israeli Army Jeep patrolling the Israel-Gaza border, injuring four soldiers.”

Not to be outdone, the Washington Post regurgitated this propaganda line in its own Orwellian-tinged editorial, “Heading off full-blown war in the Gaza strip”:

“THE IMMEDIATE cause of the exploding conflict between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip was a series of attacks by Palestinian militants, including a missile fired at a jeep carrying Israeli soldiers inside Israel, and a rain of rockets against Israeli towns — more than 180 in the course of a few days. Israel could not but respond, and when it did, it chose to deliver a strategic blow: the assassination of Hamas’s military commander, Ahmed Jabari, and airstrikes against scores of sites where the Palestinians had stored a large arsenal of rockets and missiles, including Iranian-built models capable of hitting central Israel.”

And the Los Angeles Times said pretty much the same thing its editorial, “Middle East peace takes a beating,”:

“Israel unquestionably has the right to defend itself against rockets fired by militants in Gaza. No nation is obliged to suffer such attacks without responding.And this year, according to Israeli Foreign Ministry officials, there have been twice as many rocket attacks as last year.”

So much for the media aiding and abetting Israel’s enemies. These editorials demonstrate that major American media outlets essentially have internalized the Israeli narrative and only criticize the Jewish state when its actions aren’t deemed to be in its best interests.

But that’s only part of the problem. The other is the narrative itself, which presents Israel as a victim frequently under attack by its antisemitic neighbors for being Jewish and that all of its actions are purely self-defense. It’s a narrative that exploits the long history of persecution of Jews that culminated in the Holocaust. Israel is merely confronting the new Nazis in the form of Palestinian and Islamist terrorists who wish to eliminate it simply because they’re Jews.

There’s only one problem with this narrative – it’s not true. And nothing demonstrates its falseness quite like the current conflict.

The current crisis began last Thursday when Israeli troops were fired on after they made an incursion into Gaza. The IDF moved into ‘Abassan village, east of Khan Yunis with three bulldozers and began to fire indiscriminately after coming under fire; a 13-year old child was killed. The obvious question is what the hell were Israeli forces and bulldozers crossing the border when a state of war currently exists between the two sides and the 2008-09 war – which was more like a massacre – is still a recent memory. The Israeli explanation is that “they were performing routine activity adjacent to the security fence,” which sounds more like a provocation designed to give the PM an edge in the upcoming January election.

This is what the Israelis have actually done and it’s what both Spencer and the media defend, giving them more in common than either one will probably ever know. But as much as Robert Spencer sucks, at least he doesn’t pretend to be objective – he’s taken a side, albeit the dark side. And being less well-known and relevant, his views have less impact on public consciousness and understanding than the media.

Spencer’s assertion about the media being anti-Israel and supporting its enemies is irrational, but that’s what lies at the heart of Islamophobia – irrationality. That irrationality is in line with Israel’s absurd inversion of reality, but it’s the media’s job to untangle that web and bring clarity – in theory. The reality is that it’s role is to act as a propaganda outlet for the ruling class under the guise of “objectivity,” a fact that’s been known for some time. The fact is there’s no such thing as objectivity, so there’s a choice to be made – either you’re on the side of the oppressor or on the side of the oppressed. Robert Spencer and the media already made their choice.